education sciences

Article

Engineering Attractiveness in the EuropeanEducational Environment: Can Distance EducationApproaches Make a Difference?

Konstantinos Katzis 1,* ID , Christos Dimopoulos 1, Maria Meletiou-Mavrotheris 2 andIlona-Elefteryja Lasica 2 ID

1 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, European University Cyprus, Nicosia 1516, Cyprus;C.Dimopoulos@euc.ac.cy

2 Department of Education Sciences, European University Cyprus, Nicosia 1516, Cyprus;M.Mavrotheris@euc.ac.cy (M.M.-M.); I.Lasica@research.euc.ac.cy (I.-E.L.)

* Correspondence: K.Katzis@euc.ac.cy; Tel.: +357-22-713296

Received: 30 October 2017; Accepted: 15 January 2018; Published: 18 January 2018

Abstract: The recent phenomenon of worldwide declining enrolments in engineering-related degreeshas led to the gradual decrease in the number of engineering graduates. This decrease occurs at atime of increasing demand in the labour market for highly qualified engineers, who are necessaryfor the implementation of fundamental societal functions. This paper initially presents a surveyof practices, which are currently employed by academic institutions in Europe in order to increasethe attractiveness of their engineering studies. It then provides a detailed analysis of the benefitsand proliferation of distance education to increase attractiveness of engineering studies based ona set of interviews. Results of this study, highlight a lack of a distance-learning dimension in theimplementation of engineering studies in the European Area and discusses in detail ways in whichdistance learning can be utilised in engineering studies for the benefit of increasing their attractiveness.It has also been noted that institutions employing distance learning as part of their engineering studies,see this as highly beneficial for their students but also for the academic institution itself with somereservations in terms of the pedagogical adequacy of materials and instructional approaches used indistance education courses.

Keywords: engineering attractiveness; distance education; remote laboratories; virtual reality;augmented reality; mixed reality

1. Introduction

Recent studies [1–6] have revealed a worldwide declining interest in the enrolment of students ineducational degrees related to technical disciplines. As a result, many universities have been forced toreduce the number of engineering programmes offered both at the undergraduate and postgraduatelevel. The declining numbers of engineers is posing a threat towards the healthy growth of theEuropean economy and the speedy exodus from the economic recession. Taking as an example thestructure of the UK’s economic output [7]: the value added in agriculture accounts for about 1% ofthe GDP, for industry 21% and for services 79%. Harrison [8] showed that there is good econometricevidence in the UK, that the demand for graduate engineers exceeds supply, and that the economyneeds more graduate engineers for both engineering and non-engineering jobs. This is reflected in thesizeable wage premium for people holding engineering degrees, which has been consistently increasingfor the last 20 years. Most of the industrialised economies within Europe such as Germany, Italy,France, and UK, are expected to find a long-term sustainable solution to this without any further delay.In the short-term, many employers are recruiting experienced professionals from the international

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16; doi:10.3390/educsci8010016 www.mdpi.com/journal/education

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 2 of 21

labour market, but in many cases, there are visa restrictions which make the recruitment process verycomplicated and time consuming. Moreover, although the recruitment of foreign-trained engineersmight address the lack of qualified people in the short term, it might aggravate the problem in the longterm, turning it into a societal issue. The impact on the economy will be direct, as a large percentage ofthe local population will be unable to contribute in the industrial sector.

To trace the root of the problem, one must look back into the educational system that is currentlyfollowed in Europe and identify possible causes. This paper focuses on examining the extent to whichEuropean higher education institutions offering engineering studies effectively utilise their capacity toprovide distance-based education, which is one of the main pillars of attractiveness worldwide [9].Specifically, the paper initially presents an empirical study which aimed to identify current practicesemployed by universities across Europe in order to increase the attractiveness of their engineeringprogrammes. It then provides a detailed analysis of a number of interviews that were carried outto examine how distance learning practices apply in engineering. The article then discusses howattractiveness could be enhanced through the incorporation of the distance-learning dimension in theimplementation of engineering studies, while it presents possible issues associated with it.

The rest of the paper is organised as follows: Section 2 highlights the problem of declining interestin engineering studies and briefly discusses the concept of distance-based education and its potential forincreasing the attractiveness of engineering studies. Section 3 presents the survey-based methodologyobtained for identifying practices that European universities currently employ in order to increasethe attractiveness of their engineering studies. Section 3 also presents the methodology followed toconduct a series of interviews from academics involved in distance education in engineering. Section 4then gives a brief overview of the survey and interview responses and provides a detailed analysis ofthe results. Section 5 provides an in-depth discussion on distance-based education’s potential use inengineering studies. Furthermore, it outlines the current research projects related to distance educationin engineering with emphasis given on remote laboratories. Finally, the paper provides the conclusionsof this study and discusses future directions of research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Declining Interest in Engineering Studies

The number of engineering graduates at the bachelor level in Europe and internationally hasbeen falling, prompting warnings about serious shortage of skilled engineers [1–6]. As a result,societies lack of qualified engineers, especially nowadays when the local industry and economyfaces continuous challenges due to globalisation, offshore outsourcing, competitiveness in innovationand technical expertise. To address these challenges, there is an increased demand for more highlyqualified engineering graduates. This has led to a series of questions that academia and industry mustanswer, including the following: What should be done to increase attractiveness of engineering studies,and promote their awareness to potential students of engineering degrees? How can institutionsidentify the right sort of students for a degree in engineering, ensuring that only those who really wantto become engineers are enrolled, and thus decreasing the number of dropout students? As pointedout by Johnson and Jones [3], there are many factors that contributed to this decline—including thedifficulty of the curriculum, the attractiveness of alternate paths to good technical jobs, and the lack ofattractiveness of projected employment paths for engineering graduates. Furthermore, this could bealso attributed to the inappropriate career advising sometimes provided in high schools [9].

Table 1 sums up the main reasons that young students are put off from choosing a career inengineering and science related disciplines.

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 3 of 21

Table 1. Reasons for not wanting to study Engineering.

Reason Description

1 Curriculum is Difficult

Engineering curriculum can be long and difficult, requiring a strongeducational background from secondary school years. Engineeringcurricula typically involve intense courses in mathematics, physics,chemistry etc. [3].

2 Curriculum is Expensive When compared to other degrees (law, economics, finance,marketing, etc.), engineering degrees are much more expensive.

3 Weekly timetable too busy

Compared to other undergraduate degrees, engineering has a quitebusy schedule that makes it demanding and intense. It also makes itdifficult for self-funded students to work and study at the sametime.

4 The curriculum is densely packedand inflexible

Engineering degrees require a high number of credit hours, thusincreasing the cost and making the degree less flexible for studentswho wish to broaden their experiences through an internship [3].

5 Other paths to good jobs areless demanding

Despite the steady increase in wage premium for people holdingengineering degrees, the job market has worsened for youngworkers in science and engineering fields relative to some otherhigh-level occupations [3].

6 Engineers treated as commoditiesby employers

Engineers are likely to be laid off when the company is financiallyunderperforming: in some cases, senior engineers are replaced withyoung graduates with sharper technical skills at a much lower cost,while in other cases their function is offshored.

7 Traditional entry level jobs arebeing offshored

Many entry-level jobs are outsourced to offshore locations wheregood technical talent is available at much lower cost. As a result,there are fewer jobs available for bachelor’s level engineeringgraduates, and lower salary offers [3].

8 Impact of MediaOften media provide a negative publicity to the profession througharticles on offshoring of technical jobs, and instability in theengineering profession [3].

9 Lack of Diversity in thestudent population

This applies mostly to women and minority students whosenumbers are low because of cultural and stereotype issues [3].

10 Bad career adviceSchool counsellors in some countries might not have the capacityand the eligibility to give enough details and stir the interest of thestudents to follow an engineering discipline [9].

Recent results from a study conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) indicate that the field of social sciences, business and law attracts most studentsentering tertiary education [10]. More specifically, on average, almost one-third (32%) of new tertiarystudents across OECD countries enrol in social sciences programmes, whereas only 15% of new tertiarystudents enrol in engineering, manufacturing and construction, which is the second most popularfield at the bachelor’s level. The general outcome of this study shows that the social sciences are themost popular field of study in every OECD country except Finland and Korea, where engineering,manufacturing and construction are top choices, selected by one in four students. The decreasingnumber of engineers is somehow eased because there are still sufficient rewards in some areas in Europeand US for qualified immigrants to come especially from developing countries [11]. This has becomeeven more obvious during the last few years. The German government, for example, has launched arecruitment campaign to get thousands to come from India to address its shortage of engineers andother scientists [12].

From the literature presented above, it is clear that there is a global anxiety in regardsto the shortage of future engineers. The existence of the declining trend has led researchersaround the globe to further investigate the matter and suggest potential methodologies, tools andframeworks which can potentially increase the attractiveness of engineering studies, and promotetheir awareness to potential students of engineering degrees. These suggestions have focused mainly

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 4 of 21

on academic-industry cooperation [5–7], gender and personality issues [8,9,13,14], national-leveleducational environments [11], and academic-industry cooperation [5]. However, although variousaspects of the problem have been addressed, a study on the concept of attractiveness of engineeringstudies as it relates to distance-based education has not been conducted yet [15].

2.2. Distance Learning in Engineering Education

Distance education is very broad and encompasses several methods of delivery (e.g., regular mail,radio, television, Internet). It is not new, either in general education or in the field of engineering,but has its roots in correspondence courses, which can be traced back to late nineteenth century.The advent of the Internet had a profound impact on distance education, which went through a processof transformation and adaptation to emerge as a new method of e-learning, depending heavily onInformation and Communication Technologies (ICT). Distance education now encompasses a varietyof technologies, which support both synchronous and asynchronous communication.

Although distance education is a useful framework for engineering studies, it can representa large variety of pedagogical perspectives. The conventional approach is to provide training andsupport mainly through a well-designed and predefined course package. The consequence of such anapproach is that distance education could potentially be very authoritarian, with pre-packaged coursematerial that could present only a particular perspective. The expansion, however, in the modes ofcommunication enabled by recent advances in ICT technologies, has revolutionised distance education,and is driving the development of learner-led rather than package-led forms of distance education.The appearance of a variety of new tools and technologies fostering computer-supported collaborativelearning (CSCL) [15], is leading to the development of new forms of online learning environments,in accord with socio-constructivist views of learning [16]. To understand how these environmentsoperate, one must turn back at the early stages of distance education. Back then, Holmberg used thefollowing definition to describe distance education: “ . . . the various forms of study at all levels whichare not under the continuous, immediate supervision of tutors present with their students in lecturerooms or on the same premises, but which, nevertheless, benefit from the planning, guidance andtuition of a tutorial organisation” [17]. Keegan provided a more detailed definition identifying themain characteristics of distance education [18]. First identifying characteristic of distance educationis the physical separation between teachers and learners. Second characteristic is the capacity ofthe educational institution in delivering such programmes. Institutions offering distance educationdegrees must carefully attend to programme planning, preparation and delivery of the course content,and provision of support for learners. Third characteristic is the technology and infrastructure involvedto enable distance learning by connecting the teacher and the learner. Fourth characteristic is theprovision of two-way communication for the students to enable constructive dialogue with theirinstructor. Finally, the fifth characteristic points out the fact that, due to the absence of a learninggroup of participants in distance education programmes, learners in such settings are generally taughtindividually rather than in groups.

In recent years, due to the rapid advances in ICT, we have witnessed a rapid expansion of distanceeducation worldwide as educational institutions at all levels are becoming increasingly involved indistance education initiatives [19]. Online course delivery has become common in a wide varietyof disciplines, including engineering. As part of the effort to attract a larger number of competentstudents in engineering studies and to sustain these numbers, several Universities have resortedto introducing distance education engineering studies mostly at a postgraduate level. In general,distance education is widely used in many countries worldwide. Engineering studies via distanceeducation tend to be offered by a significant number of universities, with their students being remotelylocated. The expansion of distance education engineering studies is likely to continue in forthcomingyears, given the expanding access to the Internet and the greater emphasis given to lifelong learning.

Although the five basic characteristics of distance education outlined by Keegan [18] are widelyused/referenced by the distance education research community, they cannot be considered adequate

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 5 of 21

when addressing some of the basic aspects of engineering education in the 21st century. For example,one aspect missing from Keegan’s definition [18] is stating the significance for students performinghands-on remote laboratories when adopting the concept of distance education in engineering studies.Also, missing from the definition is the need for close communication and collaboration among learners,which is a vital aspect of engineering education.

Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy [20], there are six levels for classifying humans’ cognitive process.These are knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Nightingale,Carew and Fung present these six levels from the domain of engineering [21]. More specifically,they first define knowledge as memorisation of facts, definitions, recall of methods and procedures.Second, they define comprehension as the ability to convey knowledge in alternative ways that enablethe student to compare, describe explain, discuss or classify. Third, they define application as thestep where students apply and transfer knowledge to different contexts and use abstract ideas inreal situations. Forth, they define analysis as the ability to break down complex problems into parts,solve each part and determine connections between parts. Fifth, they define synthesis as the ability toassemble parts in order to create a new whole, to integrate application knowledge with other skills,and to solve open-ended problems. Finally, the sixth step is defined as the ability to evaluate orjudge design, solution to problem and presentation. Designing engineering online courses integratingall the aforementioned steps into an online platform can be a challenging task. As stated in [22],online engineering education requires that the quality of online courses must be comparable to orbetter than the traditional classroom. Also, the courses must be available when needed and accessiblefrom anywhere, by a number of learners. Furthermore, topics across the broad spectrum of engineeringdisciplines should be available.

Recent advances in ICT technologies have generated significant interest across the researchcommunity, underlining the potential of laboratory-based learning through traditional classrooms orwithin an e-learning and/or a blended learning context [11,23,24]. There are also some studies thatnot only emphasise the importance of technology, but also examine the techniques for capturing,modelling and automating the on-campus laboratory tutors’ knowledge [23]. Modern highlytechnological educational approaches such as remoteness (remote labs), virtuality (virtual labs) andrecently immersion (augmented reality labs) [24], can greatly impact the traditional methods ofteaching and in the case of the traditional hands-on labs alleviate drawbacks such as high costs,limited availability, maintenance, etc. Selecting out the right educational tools for delivering thecurriculum, can address some of the reasons for not wanting to study engineering listed in Table 1.For example, setting up such remote laboratories featuring mixed reality technologies, can improvethe use and reuse of the laboratories allowing more students to benefit from a more flexible timetableof study (Table 1—Point 3), as well as significantly reduce the running costs for the educationalorganisations (Table 1—Point 2) that maintain these laboratories. In addition, the online systemcan dynamically assess the educational level of the student and provide individualisation anddifferentiation of instruction (Table 1—Points 1 and 4). It is clear that technologically advancedlaboratories can offer numerous benefits to both students and educational institutions but mostimportantly, this might be a crucial element for increasing attractiveness in the engineeringdiscipline [25].

3. Methodology

The study reported here has been conducted in two stages. The first stage was a survey onEngineering Attractiveness to identify and disseminate the good practices employed by Universities.The study was carried out within the context of the Academic Network of European and GlobalEngineering Education (EUGENE), a Network funded by the European Union with the aim ofimproving the impact of European Engineering Education on competitiveness, innovation andsocio-economic growth in a global context. The second stage, was carried out in the form of interviews,focusing on the distance learning implementation in Engineering Education.

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 6 of 21

3.1. Study on Attractiveness

A line of activities was formulated within the project that examined the concept of attractivenessof engineering studies within the European educational area. One of the main objectives of theseactivities was to identify and disseminate the good practices employed by universities in order to attractstudents to engineering disciplines and degrees. A pan-European survey-based research methodologywas designed and implemented for this purpose. In particular, the methodology that was followedinvolved the development and administration of a questionnaire, aiming to capture informationon the policies and/or activities employed by academic institutions currently offering engineeringdegrees within the European educational area, in order to attract students to their engineering degrees.While the use of individual attractiveness practices in the implementation of engineering studies hasbeen extensively discussed and evaluated, this study was the first survey of the practices actuallyemployed by academic institutions for this purpose that has been reported in the literature, to the bestof the authors’ knowledge.

A model for investigating attractiveness in engineering education, illustrated in Figure 1 wasdeveloped, so as to guide the construction of the questionnaire. This model depicts all stages ofengineering education, the studies leading to them, the career paths of engineering students, and therespective feedback paths leading back to engineering studies.

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 6 of 21

information on the policies and/or activities employed by academic institutions currently offering engineering degrees within the European educational area, in order to attract students to their engineering degrees. While the use of individual attractiveness practices in the implementation of engineering studies has been extensively discussed and evaluated, this study was the first survey of the practices actually employed by academic institutions for this purpose that has been reported in the literature, to the best of the authors’ knowledge.

A model for investigating attractiveness in engineering education, illustrated in Figure 1 was developed, so as to guide the construction of the questionnaire. This model depicts all stages of engineering education, the studies leading to them, the career paths of engineering students, and the respective feedback paths leading back to engineering studies.

Figure 1. Model for investigating attractiveness in engineering education employed in the study.

The questionnaire distinguished between two categories of attractiveness: attractiveness-oriented activities (i.e., specific, purpose-based actions taken in order to increase the attractiveness of engineering studies), and attractiveness-oriented policies (i.e., strategic directions followed in order to increase the attractiveness of engineering studies). The questionnaire specifically inquired academic institutions on the target group, main objectives, means of implementation, source of funding, and qualitative/quantitative results of the activity’s/policy’s implementation. The questionnaire was submitted electronically to all academic institutions (n = 76) in the EUGENE network. A total number of twenty (n = 20) academic institutions across Europe offering engineering degrees completed and returned the questionnaire providing relevant information regarding the implementation of attractiveness activities/policies. Once all information was collected, a percentage analysis was conducted for each of the categories included in the questionnaire. Qualitative data, collected through the inclusion of several open-ended questions within the survey, were also analysed using qualitative means of analysis.

3.2. Distance Learning in Engineering Education

At the second stage of the study, five participants among those completing the questionnaire, originating from five different Higher Education (HE) institutions in four EU countries (Cyprus, Portugal, Serbia, Spain) volunteered to be interviewed. These academics were first asked whether they think their institution does take advantage of the benefits and proliferation of distance education to increase attractiveness of engineering studies. They responded positively, indicating that many of their undergraduate and/or post-graduate engineering study programmes are taught entirely at-distance or, at least, using a blended learning approach through use of the Learning Management System (LMS) such as Moodle.

Figure 1. Model for investigating attractiveness in engineering education employed in the study.

The questionnaire distinguished between two categories of attractiveness: attractiveness-orientedactivities (i.e., specific, purpose-based actions taken in order to increase the attractiveness ofengineering studies), and attractiveness-oriented policies (i.e., strategic directions followed in order toincrease the attractiveness of engineering studies). The questionnaire specifically inquired academicinstitutions on the target group, main objectives, means of implementation, source of funding, andqualitative/quantitative results of the activity’s/policy’s implementation. The questionnaire wassubmitted electronically to all academic institutions (n = 76) in the EUGENE network. A total numberof twenty (n = 20) academic institutions across Europe offering engineering degrees completedand returned the questionnaire providing relevant information regarding the implementation ofattractiveness activities/policies. Once all information was collected, a percentage analysis wasconducted for each of the categories included in the questionnaire. Qualitative data, collected throughthe inclusion of several open-ended questions within the survey, were also analysed using qualitativemeans of analysis.

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 7 of 21

3.2. Distance Learning in Engineering Education

At the second stage of the study, five participants among those completing the questionnaire,originating from five different Higher Education (HE) institutions in four EU countries (Cyprus,Portugal, Serbia, Spain) volunteered to be interviewed. These academics were first asked whether theythink their institution does take advantage of the benefits and proliferation of distance education toincrease attractiveness of engineering studies. They responded positively, indicating that many of theirundergraduate and/or post-graduate engineering study programmes are taught entirely at-distanceor, at least, using a blended learning approach through use of the Learning Management System (LMS)such as Moodle.

In the following section, a short overview of the survey results is provided as they relate todistance-based education. More details regarding the study and its outcomes can be found in [19].Furthermore, a brief analysis of the interviews is also provided.

4. Results

4.1. Basic Attractiveness Activities

The results related to the attractiveness activities implemented by academic institutions in orderto increase the attractiveness of their studies are presented in Table 2. The analysis of these results(Table 2) reveals that academic institutions in Europe are mainly concentrating on increasing theattractiveness link between secondary school studies and engineering studies. Traditional advertisingtools, such as TV, radio, and World Wide Web advertising, as well as face-to-face communication areemployed for this purpose in the majority of cases (more than 90% of responses).

Table 2. Type of activity employed for attracting students to Engineering studies.

Activity Percentage

Traditional advertising (newspapers, magazines, radio programmes, television) 93.33%Secondary school/Elementary school visits 93.33%University career oriented talks 33.33%Public career oriented talks 40.00%Other 26.67%

A closer examination of the survey results for this question revealed a wealth of activitiesemployed by academic institutions in order to increase the attractiveness link between secondaryschool studies and engineering studies. In particular, academic institutions extensively seek toinitiate face-to-face communication with secondary school stakeholders through a variety of eithercampus-based or remote activities:

4.1.1. Campus-Based Activities

1. Information sessions organised in the University for prospective students;2. Information sessions organised in the University for parents;3. Information sessions organised in the University for mathematics and science teachers;4. Open days organised in the University for the general public;5. Guided visits to the University premises for prospective students;6. ‘Test-driving’ activities (controlled participation of prospective students in University studies,

in the form of conducting experiments).

4.1.2. Remote Activities

1. Presentation of Bachelor degrees in secondary school premises;2. Participation in University road shows.

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 8 of 21

Although the bulk of the activities concerns secondary students, there are also some initiatives targetingyounger learners, such as children’s university activities organised in the university for elementaryschool students.

Despite the wealth of activities employed by academic institutions in order to increase theattractiveness link between secondary school studies and engineering studies, none of these institutionscarried out activities where distance-based learning was explicitly targeted as the main attractivenesselement for the implementation of engineering studies.

4.2. Basic Attractiveness Policies

The results of the survey identified a small but still considerable number of institutions (15%),which follow policies that explicitly target the long-term increase of the attractiveness of engineeringstudies. In particular, the policies reported were the following:

1. Implementation of Quality Assurance (QA) techniques;2. Incorporation of research knowledge and experimentation in teaching;3. Investment on the development of state-of-the-art laboratories;4. Focus on guaranteeing job placement for university graduates;5. Active promotion and support of student welfare;6. Acquisition of accreditation for degrees;7. Implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model.

As with the case of attractiveness activities, no institution explicitly sought to utilise/implementpolicies related to the offering of distance-based engineering studies in order to increase theirattractiveness. As an example, it is interesting to note that while many academic institutionsinvest heavily on the development of state-of-the-art physical laboratories, the development anduse of virtual/remote laboratories was not reported as a significant policy towards increasing theattractiveness of engineering studies.

4.3. Funding Sources of Attractiveness Practices

Table 3 presents the survey results related to the funding sources employed by academicinstitutions for the practical implementation of their attractiveness activities/policies. These resultsindicate that the overwhelming majority of academic institutions use internal funding sources for theimplementation of the corresponding activities/policies.

Table 3. Source of funding for attractiveness activities/policies.

Source of Funding Percentage

Internal funding (University—Engineering School) 93.33%External funding (Industry, benevolent) 33.33%Government Support (Including military support) 46.66%

However, a significant percentage of institutions also utilise external funding resources,namely the government (46.6% of institutions) and the industrial sector (33.3% of institutions). This factindicates that there is a general societal interest in increasing the attractiveness of engineering studies,possibly triggered by the worldwide lack of qualified engineers, as explained in the introductorysection of this paper.

4.4. Funding Sources of Attractiveness Practices

The activities/policies described in the previous subsections can be used to target variousengineering studies stakeholders. The survey inquired academic institutions about the stakeholders

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 9 of 21

who are explicitly targeted through attractiveness activities/policies. The results of this part of thesurvey are presented in Table 4.

As expected, the majority of the attractiveness efforts are concentrated on secondary schoolstudents, who constitute the main target group of the relevant/policies activities. However, it isimportant to note that a significant percentage of institutions actively target students of elementaryschools, aiming to promote the engineering discipline from a very young age. This focus on primaryschool children stems from the fact that the early years of schooling are especially important forchildren’s academic development [19]. As the research suggests, students’ identity is formed in theelementary grades, and predicts their attitudes and achievement in mathematics and science in lateryears [26]. Moreover, it is evident that due to the organic relationship that young learners now possesswith the use of IT technologies, they will be much friendlier to the idea of implementing distance-basedengineering studies in the near future.

Table 4. Target groups of attractiveness activities/policies.

Target Groups Percentage

Elementary School Students 26.67Secondary School Students 93.33Undergraduate Students 46.67Postgraduate Students 6.67PhD Students 0.0Mature Students (People who wish to change their working discipline) 13.33Parents 53.33Secondary School Teachers 46.67Teachers/Instructors 66.67

4.5. Quality Objectives of Attractiveness Activities/Policies

The survey also inquired institutions on the quality objectives of their attractivenessactivities/policies. The results of this part of the survey are summarised in Table 5.

Table 5. Quality objectives of attractiveness activities/policies.

Activity/Policy Objective Percentage

Show that the engineering discipline is fun 46.67Show that an engineering career is financially attractive 40.00Show that the engineering discipline is useful for society 60.00Show that engineering is a creative discipline 86.67Show that the engineering discipline has global relevance 53.33Show that engineering is a problem-solving discipline 80.00Show that engineering is about collaboration & teamwork 20.00Show that engineering is not only mathematics and physics 6.67Show that engineering is integrated with ICT 6.67Show that engineering demand is increasing 6.67

Results of Table 5 indicate that a significant percentage of attractiveness efforts aim to showcasethe creative and problem-solving dimensions of the engineering discipline. This is not an unexpectedresult since, as already discussed in previous sections, attractiveness efforts are mainly directedtowards the younger generations of people, who, in principle, are more interested in the ‘excitement’generated by a discipline rather than its future career implications. Still, a significant percentage ofefforts aim to underline the financial attractiveness of the engineering career, especially in relation tothe implementation of postgraduate and continuous education studies.

It is interesting to note though, that very few of the attractiveness efforts aim to depict the‘interdisciplinarity’ of the engineering profession, even if this is only confined to the closely-related

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 10 of 21

field of ICT. This is a surprising finding, since ‘interdisciplinarity’ of subjects is considered to be asignificant future research and teaching direction on a globalised level. The expected rise in the use ofdistance-based educational tools will undoubtedly strengthen the ‘interdisciplinarity’ dimension ofengineering studies and therefore considerably increase their attractiveness.

4.6. Interviews on Distance Education in Engineering

Five participants, originating from five different HE institutions in four EU countries (Cyprus,Portugal, Serbia, Spain) volunteered to be interviewed. These academics were first asked whether theythink their institution does take advantage of the benefits and proliferation of distance education toincrease attractiveness of engineering studies. They responded positively, indicating that many of theirundergraduate and/or post-graduate engineering study programmes are taught entirely at-distanceor, at least, using a blended learning approach through use of the Learning Management System (LMS)such as Moodle. Nonetheless, only one noted that their engineering programmes develop and utilise“remote experiments in engineering laboratories for distance experimenting”.

Interviewees indicated the percentage of undergraduate courses offered at-distance in theirengineering programmes. They gave percentages ranging between 5–70%, noting that some of thesecourses were electives, while others were core, compulsory engineering courses. They also all statedthat some of their online courses were lab-based.

Participants were also prompted to indicate what they consider as the main benefits of teachingengineering courses at-distance. They referred to the flexibility and convenience associated withdistance education, which makes it possible for students to determine their own place, pace, and timeof study: “Students have the opportunity to study at a time and a place that suits them”. The promotionof communication and collaboration among students was also an aspect considered as an importantstrength of distance education: “Students can consult teachers and their peers over online communicationchannels”. They also argued that the distance education option has important benefits not onlyfor students, but also for the academic institution itself: “Saves space and energy for the university”;“Attracts students living outside our region”; “Makes better use of equipment”.

At the same time, respondents identified a number of challenges in teaching engineering coursesat-distance. Their biggest concern was the “pedagogical adequacy of materials and instructionalapproaches” used in distance education courses. In particular, they considered the “realisation oflab-based classes” to be a very difficult endeavour. The sole participant whose institution uses virtuallaboratories also stated the need to “improve the sense of real experimentation for the students takingremote experiments”.

Interviewees pointed out a number of measures taken at their institution to ensure that their onlineengineering programmes are of comparable, or even superior, quality to those offered face-to-face:

“We try to follow up-to-date guidelines from specialists in distance education. We also usefeedback from students, and we compare their grades with conventional classes”;“We use remotely controlled laboratory exercises”;

“We try to raise awareness of the faculty to the specific difficulties of the at-distance model”;

“We regularly administer questionnaires that are used to measure the quality of our courses,and we carefully analyse their results.”

When asked whether the engineering courses offered online in their university provide similaropportunities for interaction and collaboration between students and instructors and among studentsto those offered face-to-face, four of the interviewees agreed, stating that their distance educationstudents “can use various online communication channels such forums, videoconferencing, skype, and e-mailto communicate with their teachers and peers”. However, one of the participants pointed out that topromote and sustain communication and collaboration among students enrolled in courses taughtentirely online, instructors ought to make participation in discussion forums and other collaborativeactivities a compulsory element of the course. This does not seem to be an issue in blended courses

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 11 of 21

since, as the interviewees mentioned, students “still have face-to-face interactions with instructors andbetween themselves”.

Interviewees’ responses suggest that their engineering programmes have still not been impactedby recent technological developments outside the education sector, such as Virtual Reality (VR) andAugmented Reality (AR). Only one respondent noted that they are “in the process of introducing VRand AR in some online courses beside the courses in Computer animation study program where they arealready in use”. The rest stated that there are currently no efforts at their institution to introduceVR/AR in engineering programmes, although “these technologies are used by some instructors, more forresearch purposes”.

Only two of the respondents stated that their institution has empirical data on the impact ofdistance education on engineering students’ motivation and learning. One of them noted that they“have conducted some research among students concerning their motivation”, and the other one that theyhave also “published some papers on that topic”.

Interviewees were finally prompted as to whether they considered distance education courses tobe equivalent to or better than on-campus courses. One interviewee disagreed, considering them tobe of lower quality compared to face-to-face courses, and noting that their institution faces a higherattrition among students taking online engineering programmes. This person argued that instructorsteaching online should do more “to attract students with more interesting materials, activities, foster theircommunication and collaborative work”. The rest of the respondents considered online courses to be ofequivalent quality, pointing out, however that “this is subject to the preparedness and readiness of teachers,the quality of the course material, and the level and competence of students in e-learning”. They stated thatat their institution “the dropout rate is observed not to be related to the at-distance model”, and that thetypical feedback received by engineering students enrolled in online courses “in general is very positive”.Moreover, they stressed that the academic performance of students enrolled in Distance LearningCourses is “equally good” to that of students enrolled in similar courses offered face-to-face.

The results from our survey and interview based methodology depicted that the academicinstitutions in the European educational area mainly utilise traditional forms of advertising and targetpredominantly secondary school students through internally-funded attractiveness activities/policies.However, a range of innovative attractiveness activities/policies are starting to emerge from theseinstitutions, in an attempt to increase the efficiency of the attractiveness efforts. In terms of distanceeducation in higher education, it is evident that many of undergraduate and/or post-graduateengineering study programmes are taught entirely at-distance or, at least, using a blended learningapproach through use of the Learning Management System (LMS) such as Moodle. Furthermore,it was indicated that institutions offering distance education in engineering, do take advantage of thebenefits and proliferation of distance education to increase attractiveness of engineering studies. At thesame time, they have some reservations in regards to the way the material is being delivered alongwith the effectiveness of the instructor. It has also been deduced from the interviews, that there seemsto be little effort in incorporating new technologies such as VR/AR/MR in delivering distant courses.

We next provide some recommendations as to how institutions could enhance these effortsby focusing on the potential of distance education. We first present tools that could be employed indistance learning engineering education, and then outline some ongoing or recently completed researchprojects related to distance education in engineering with emphasis given on remote laboratories.

5. Distance Learning in Engineering Education

Currently, the majority of online engineering degrees are available at the postgraduate level.One possible explanation is because undergraduate engineering degrees involve a great deal oflaboratories that are too complicated or too expensive to run online. Another reason is becauseyoung undergraduate learners tend to prefer on-campus studies, unlike more mature adults who aremore likely to study at a distance. Nevertheless, the quest for establishing fully online engineering

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 12 of 21

degrees continues, with many academic institutions being involved in research and development ofremote laboratories.

5.1. Tools Employed in Distance Learning Education in Engineering

Distance education relies heavily on Information and Communication Technologies (ICT).Offering online courses or even degrees requires a variety of technologies, which support bothsynchronous and asynchronous communication. Figure 2 illustrates some of the basic areas that mustbe addressed using ICT tools. These tools can be part of a general Learning Management System (LMS)such as Moodle, or they can be offered as independent tools possibly linked with the LMS employedfor delivering the courses. Their functions can be briefly described as follows:Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 12 of 21

Figure 2. Engineering Distance Education Tools.

Presentation Tools: Synchronous presentation tools are tools that deliver the teaching material through audiovisual tools. Through these tools, the instructor can deliver the teaching material/notes while there is a bi-directional interaction between the instructor and the students or just between the students currently online. Asynchronous presentation tools usually provide access to recorded presentations from synchronous presentation sessions as well as typical PowerPoint presentation files. Tools such as Blackboard Collaborate, Webex, Skype and many others, offer the option to record synchronous presentation sessions and make them available for those unable to attend the “live” class at the time of its delivery.

Communication tools: Synchronous communication tools involve tools that support real-time discussion, either audio-visual or just text-based. Such tools are sometimes integrated with presentation tools and can be used in parallel to the presentation. In asynchronous communication, the exchange of messages does not happen in real time but at different time instances. Examples include the messaging system that any LMS features, emails etc. To put into perspective, what is required for engineering degrees to be made available online, a set of tools have been identified and presented below.

Evaluation tools: Although many of the online courses require students to undertake face-to-face examinations, students are still required to submit their assignments, projects etc. online. Synchronous evaluation tools require students to perform a test at a particular time using a particular tool (multiple choice exam, audio-visual online experiments, etc.). Using asynchronous evaluation tools, students can submit their work at any time (before the set deadline). Course evaluation can be done through various means, including simple homework, group-projects, multiple-choice questionnaires, all submitted electronically.

Laboratory tools: Engineering distance education, especially at an undergraduate level, requires that students have regular hands-on laboratory experience. Some experiments can be conducted using virtual tools, while others require tools that control real equipment in real time. Experiments related to disciplines such as electrical and electronic engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering and many other engineering degrees, dictate that engineering students must be able to remotely carry out these experiments. Failure to do so increases the risk of making distance learning engineering degrees inferior to the conventional ones. Examples of real time experiments using real or virtual equipment enhancing their operation with Augmented Reality (AR) technologies are currently an active area of research. An overview of the state-of-the-art in the field of Laboratory-based education can be found in [24] where the paper presents various technologies available in the area of Augmented Reality (AR) and the trend in education towards the use of different types of labs in the field of STEM. As it arises from [27], there is an obvious trend in STEM education towards the

Figure 2. Engineering Distance Education Tools.

Presentation Tools: Synchronous presentation tools are tools that deliver the teaching materialthrough audiovisual tools. Through these tools, the instructor can deliver the teaching material/noteswhile there is a bi-directional interaction between the instructor and the students or just betweenthe students currently online. Asynchronous presentation tools usually provide access to recordedpresentations from synchronous presentation sessions as well as typical PowerPoint presentationfiles. Tools such as Blackboard Collaborate, Webex, Skype and many others, offer the option to recordsynchronous presentation sessions and make them available for those unable to attend the “live” classat the time of its delivery.

Communication tools: Synchronous communication tools involve tools that support real-timediscussion, either audio-visual or just text-based. Such tools are sometimes integrated with presentationtools and can be used in parallel to the presentation. In asynchronous communication, the exchange ofmessages does not happen in real time but at different time instances. Examples include the messagingsystem that any LMS features, emails etc. To put into perspective, what is required for engineeringdegrees to be made available online, a set of tools have been identified and presented below.

Evaluation tools: Although many of the online courses require students to undertakeface-to-face examinations, students are still required to submit their assignments, projects etc. online.Synchronous evaluation tools require students to perform a test at a particular time using a particulartool (multiple choice exam, audio-visual online experiments, etc.). Using asynchronous evaluationtools, students can submit their work at any time (before the set deadline). Course evaluation

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 13 of 21

can be done through various means, including simple homework, group-projects, multiple-choicequestionnaires, all submitted electronically.

Laboratory tools: Engineering distance education, especially at an undergraduate level,requires that students have regular hands-on laboratory experience. Some experiments can beconducted using virtual tools, while others require tools that control real equipment in real time.Experiments related to disciplines such as electrical and electronic engineering, civil engineering,mechanical engineering and many other engineering degrees, dictate that engineering students mustbe able to remotely carry out these experiments. Failure to do so increases the risk of making distancelearning engineering degrees inferior to the conventional ones. Examples of real time experiments usingreal or virtual equipment enhancing their operation with Augmented Reality (AR) technologies arecurrently an active area of research. An overview of the state-of-the-art in the field of Laboratory-basededucation can be found in [24] where the paper presents various technologies available in the area ofAugmented Reality (AR) and the trend in education towards the use of different types of labs in thefield of STEM. As it arises from [27], there is an obvious trend in STEM education towards the use ofdifferent types of remote laboratories. This trend creates the need for systematic research in order toanswer the critical research questions that emerge, as mentioned in the previous sections.

Modern educators, irrespective of the level of education they are involved in, seek ways ofproviding the most effective, reliable and convenient tools and services for distance learning solutions.Some of the most widely used tools, listed by Steinberg [28], can be associated with delivering onlinematerial for engineering degrees. These are listed in Table 6.

Table 6. Distance Learning Tools.

Tools Description

1 Adobe Connect 1Offers immersive online meeting experiences from small group collaboration to large-scalewebinars. Features digital meetings with various associated tools, an all-in-one webinarsolution for marketers and a complete digital learning solution for trainers.

2 Blackboard 2

Another educational tool consisted of various platforms (e.g., blackboard learn,collaborate, connect, mobile, analytics), which provide a virtual learning environment,featuring real time online collaboration environment that everyone can engage into adiscussion.

3 Canvas 3

A freely available learning management system that offers open, online courses taught byeducators everywhere. Teachers, students, and institutions worldwide can use canvas toconnect and chart their own course for personal growth, professional development, andacademic inquiry.

4 Coursera 4 An online portal used for hosting courses from universities around the world that givesstudents the chance to “attend” classes they would otherwise not have access to.

5 Dessci 5

Combines a set of products for scientific and technical communication. Some of theiravailable products are MathType, MathFlow, and MathPlayer software which are used byscientists, engineers, educators and publishing professionals, for authoring and publishingmathematical notation in print and online documents, and for building web pages withinteractive math content.

6 edX 6 One of the leading sites for accessing massive open online courses. Offers classes fromvarious prestigious institutions, as well as material from an expanding list of partners.

7 ePals 7

Another tool for enabling teachers to use the free ePals Global Classroom and create realworld, culturally- enriching learning experiences for their students. For example, a classstudying Chinese can connect with a class studying English in China, or the classes canwork together on a special project, thus allowing classroom matching. Also allowsteachers to create their own projects or join another class’ existing ones.

8 FaceTime 8Employed by Apple users to make video calls between apple devices. Among the simplestand most widely-available ways to connect via voice and video with others online(provided they are using apple products).

9 Google PlusHangouts 9

A solution available from Google for connecting people via voice and video as well aschat, letting teachers, students and third-party experts to easily videoconference in groups.

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 14 of 21

Table 6. Cont.

Tools Description

10 Fathom DynamicData Software 10

Enables users to freely and creatively explore ideas in mathematics, statistics, and science.Can be employed to relate studies to real-world examples and use the results to visualiseand understand the concepts.

11 Tinkerplots 11

A project funded by the National Science Foundation which led to the creation of asoftware tool and accompanying curriculum materials for teaching data analysis andstatistics. The software offers a construction set rather than a menu of ready-made graphtypes, and helps orient students and teachers to the inquiry-driven nature of data analysis.Although originally targeting middle school children, it has also been widely used in highschool and college level classrooms.

12 iTunes U courses 12Enable teachers to give each class a customised learning experience, through the creationand management of their own courses. Students can access it all from the iTunes U appwithout setting foot in a formal classroom.

13 Schoology 13

Allows teachers to manage their classroom, engage their students, find resources, andconnect to other teachers anytime, anywhere. Schoology features mechanisms withemphasis on the monitoring and education of students. This gives an additional tool toteachers by helping them analyse and better educate kids based on usage and activity.

14 Skype 14One of the most widely used tools for making voice or video calls as well as chatting, fileexchange etc. Free and compatible with most available operating systems whether theseare computers, smartphones, tablets, etc.

15 Udacity 15

Another major player in the massive open online courses as it offers accessible, affordable,interactive online courses that seek to empower their students to advance not just theireducation but also their careers in technology. Courses, providing the most relevant andcutting-edge tech education that bridges the gap between academia and the needs of the21st century workforce, are developed and offered in collaboration with leaders in the techindustry. All Udacity courses provide free access to the course materials, but in some ofthe courses users are given the option of paying a fee to enroll for the full courseexperience, gaining special access to projects, code-review and feedback, a personal Coach,and verified certificates.

16 YouTube 16Is effectively a library of videos, some of which are educational. There are numerousexamples of leading schools and academic institutions posting material online throughYouTube.

Notes: 1 http://www.adobe.com/products/adobeconnect.html; 2 http://www.blackboard.com; 3 http://www.instructure.com/; 4 https://www.coursera.org/; 5 https://www.dessci.com; 6 https://www.edx.org/; 7 http://www.epals.com/; 8 http://www.apple.com/mac/facetime/; 9 http://www.google.com/+/learnmore/hangouts/;10 http://concord.org/fathom-dynamic-data-software; 11 http://www.srri.umass.edu/tinkerplots-project. 12

http://www.apple.com/education/itunes-u/; 13 https://www.schoology.com/; 14 http://www.skype.com/; 15

https://www.udacity.com/; 16 http://www.youtube.com/.

All these online educational platforms, communication tools, LMS, etc. can be used to delivereducational material. Some of them might target students at secondary education, some in highereducation and some are general platforms that can be used by anyone. The main objective they allshare is to deliver effective online education that can be practical, inspiring, easy to use and, above all,effective in knowledge transfer and creation. For the engineering discipline however, although beinguseful, these tools might not be sufficient. Engineering education combines science and mathematicsbased—subjects. These are traditionally hard to teach online because of the need for laboratories andequation manipulation [29]. For this to be addressed, there are two approaches. One is by employingvirtual hands-on laboratories and the other by employing expensive laboratory equipment maintainedat one location, accessed by all remotely. A more cost-effective solution is to carry out the laboratorysessions through summer programmes [30]. As a first approach, this can be used as a basic model fordelivering engineering degrees online. Nevertheless, the overarching aim of distance learning is toenable students to attend a fully online degree without having to physically attend the class or thelaboratory. The following section describes recent worldwide efforts in offering real time hands onexperience on real equipment.

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 15 of 21

5.2. Distance Education in Engineering: Current Projects

Universities around the globe have been gradually replacing their conventional courses withonline courses. The ninth annual survey of online education [31] states that the 10 per cent growth ratefor online enrolments far exceeds the 2 per cent growth in the overall higher education studentpopulation. Nonetheless, offering online courses in engineering can be technically challenging.As stated by Fallon [32] in his paper “Survey of Existing Remote Laboratories used to ConductLaboratory Exercises for Distance Learning Courses”, several of the online courses (mostly inengineering/science) have a laboratory component that requires the use of hardware and/or software,posing technical problems or even licensing problems when operated remotely. If the laboratorycomponent is purely software based, then minimum constraints are expected, except perhaps in thecase where centralised applications or license servers are used.

Engineering laboratories intended for distance learning are primarily hardware-based, with accessto the laboratory equipment being either physical or virtual. As stated by Fallon [32], access to suchlaboratories can be realised through a specialised lab kit, a Virtual Private Network (VPN), or thecreation of strategically located remote learning centres. Each approach is employed depending onthe type of the laboratory that will be designed, and is associated with particular technical challengesand costs. Müller and Erbe [33] differentiate engineering laboratories between hands-on and virtual(simulated), local and distributed, and mono-user or multi-user environments and present the idea of aremote laboratory as a laboratory that enables students to access physical laboratories or workbenchesfrom distance sites by using a suitable communication infrastructure.

Some institutions that offer online courses and programmes, have chosen to avoid remotelaboratories altogether perhaps because costs are too high or the number of students enrolled inthese courses does not justify the deployment of such laboratories. Other institutions have investedtime and money to develop such laboratories. Table 7 presents various projects around the world thatare related to remote laboratories. Some are designed for students in higher education and some insecondary education. Despite of context, the design and implementation of such laboratories is alwaysinteresting and sometimes inspiring when developing a new laboratory for a new course.

Table 7 lists a number of remote laboratory implementations identifying the technical issuestowards the specific implementation of an architecture to fulfil the educational requirements of eachexperiment. The format, the equipment used and the complexity of the lab delivered is dictated bythe curriculum. In some cases, hardware equipment must be setup and remotely accessed—whichmeans that there is an added technical complexity and cost to the remote laboratory. In these cases,the remote labs are not as well integrated as the ones that are mostly software based. Furthermore,cost restrictions affect the integration between the modules (hardware control mechanisms and LMS)and limit the capacity in terms of user access—thus posing usage restrictions of the remote laboratories.Security is also an issue that needs to be considered in cases where sensitive and expensive equipmentis being used, but most importantly the LMS needs to safely keep the records of the students andtheir results.

Table 7 indicates that there is a great variety of equipment, mechanisms and methodologyemployed targeting different pools of students. It also suggests that there is no optimal architectureand it is important that each laboratory exercise is implemented in such a way that the learningoutcomes are fully addressed.

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 16 of 21

Table 7. Distance Learning Projects and Technologies Employed.

Project Name Institution/Location Scientific Field Technology Used Description

1UTS remote laboratories—the

Programmable Logic Controller (PLC)laboratory, and the water level laboratory

Faculty of Engineering atthe University of

Technology, SydneyMechanical Engineering

PLC rigs/electro-pneumaticcylinders, iSightTM firewire webcam,RSLogix programming environment

These laboratories are designed for mechanical and mechatronicengineering students, and have been used in the teaching ofsubjects such as “Advanced Manufacturing”, “Dynamics andControl” and “Mechatronics 2” [34].

2 Heat Transfer Remote LaboratoryGeorgia Institute of

Technology,Savannah, USA

Mechanical Engineering

LabVIEW®, Armfield® HT10XCComputer Controlled Heat Transferstation, an Armfield® HT15Extended Surface Heat Exchanger

An experiment was created to obtain experimental data andanalyse the ability of Remote Labs to be integrated with currentcoursework. Surveys results indicated that the perceptions astudent carries about the effectiveness of Remote Laboratoriesimproves after they perform the experiment [35].

3 Remote operations of High AngularResolution Astronomy centre

Georgia State University,Atlanta, USA Astronomy

Linux-based workstations, archivalserver interfaced to the main controlcomputers of the array via a VirtualPrivate Network (VPN) over theInternet

The telescope array is located atop Mount Wilson, Californianortheast of Los Angeles. Through this collaboration, the telescopewas possible to be remotely controlled from the Arrington RemoteOperations Centre (AROC), located on the campus of GSU inAtlanta, Georgia. This has enabled faculty and students toremotely operate the array from Atlanta and has led to a significantreduction in travel costs of the people involved. This projectevolved into four more remote operations facilities established inFrance, Australia and the US [32].

4Laboratory in the Department ofTelecommunications and Signal

Processing

Blekinge Institute ofTechnology

(BTH), SwedenElectrical Engineering

National Instruments (NI) PXI-1000B8-slot #U PXI, (PXI-8176), fourplug-in boards, two functiongenerators (PXI-5411 and PXI-5401),an oscilloscope (PXI-5112), a digitalI/O board (PXI-6508), server systemrunning LabVIEW

A remotely operated laboratory accessed from around the worldfor delivering exercises for courses in electrical engineering.The remote laboratory is implemented using a ‘remotely controlledswitch matrix with five nodes, ten branches, and 40 components,two function generators, a digital multi-meter, and an oscilloscope’[36].

5 Remote Laboratories for the SPSUcampus

Southern PolytechnicState University (SPSU)and Technical College

System of Georgia(TCSG), USA

Engineering TechnologyLab Kits accessed through VirtualPrivate Network (VPN) over theInternet

SPSU and TCSG have been working together towards enablingstudents to complete laboratory exercises at facilities that areremote to the SPSU campus [32].

6 Canadian Remote Sciences Laboratories

Northern Alberta Instituteof Technology (NAIT) and

Athabasca University,Canada

Engineering Technology

Remote laboratories designed were based on the control ofanalytical instruments in real-time via an Internet connection.Students perform real-time analysis using equipment, methods,and skills that are common to modern analytical laboratories (orsophisticated teaching laboratories). Examples of experimentsdeveloped are Chromatography and Spectroscopy [37].

7 ECU virtual laboratory East Carolina University,USA

ComputerScience/Engineering

Virtualisation software VMwareworkstation, Linux and WindowsServers

A virtual laboratory environment consisting of virtual machines,which communicate with one another over a virtual network.Students are able to run these machines “remotely” on their owncomputers at home [34].

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 17 of 21

Table 7. Cont.

Project Name Institution/Location Scientific Field Technology Used Description

8

NeReLa (Building a Network of RemoteLabs for strengthening university

secondary vocationalschools collaboration)

Europe (Eight Serbianpartners and five

European institutionstook part in this project)

Electronic, Electrical,Mechatronic and

Computer Engineering

Varying from Nexys 2 FPGAplatform and Xilinx ISE Design Suite,to CompactRIO, CeyeClon platform,raspberry pie and thermocouplesensors

A European Funded project (Tempus) completed in 2016. Thewider objective of this project was to increase attractiveness ofengineering education through innovative teaching methods, aswell as through strengthening of university and secondaryvocational schools’ collaboration. Some of the specific objectiveslisted in NeReLa [38] were to build a cross-universities network ofremote engineering laboratories in order to enhance engineeringeducation at Serbian Higher Education institutions and tostrengthen university-secondary vocational schools collaborationthrough secondary vocational school teacher training in usingresources of The Library of Remote Experiments (LiReX).Furthermore, NeReLa aimed to bring remote engineeringexperiments into secondary vocational school classrooms in orderto promote engineering education attractiveness to prospectiveengineering students.

9 Go-Lab Project (Global Online ScienceLabs for Inquiry Learning at School)

SecondaryEducation/Europe

Science—SecondaryEducation

Remote and virtual science labs,inquiry learning applications, andInquiry Learning Spaces (ILSs)together with an authoring tool forteachers to create own ILSs.

It was completed in 2016, focused on secondary education, aimedto open up remote science laboratories, their data archives, andvirtual models (“online labs”) for large-scale use in education.Go-Lab [39] enables science inquiry-based learning that promotesacquisition of deep conceptual domain knowledge and inquiryskills and directs students to careers in science.

10 PEARL (Practical Experimentation byAccessible Remote Learning) Europe

Science and Electronicand Manufacturing

Engineering Education

Motorised Optical Spectrometer,Computer Vision Experiment Rig,Apache based web server, videocameras, Goepel digital I/O board,function generator board, multimeterboard, two-channel 100 MHzoscilloscope

An EU funded project completed in 2003 that aimed at enablingstudents in conducting live experiments over the web providinghigh quality learning experiences in science and engineeringeducation by bringing the teaching laboratory to the students,giving flexibility in terms of time, location and special needs [40].

11 EL-STEM (Enlivened Laboratorieswithin STEM Education)

SecondaryEducation/Europe

STEM SecondaryEducation

AR environment, UnityProgramming Tools

An Erasmus+ funded project that has started in October 2017 andit aims to develop a new approach, inspired by the emergingtechnologies of AR (Augmented Reality) and MR (Mixed Reality)with Remote and/or Local Laboratories, for encouraging 12-18year-old students’ STEM engagement. In particular, EL-STEM’smain objectives are to (a) attract students who currently might notbe interested in STEM related studies/careers and enhance theinterest of those who have already chosen this field ofstudies/careers, (b) improve students’ performance in coursesrelated to STEM [41].

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 18 of 21

6. Discussion and Conclusions

This paper has explored the potential of distance education approaches as a means of tackling thewell-documented trend in recent years of declining interest in the pursuit of engineering studies andcareers. Specifically, the article first presented the current situation in relation to European universities’efforts to increase the attractiveness of their engineering programmes, as this emerged through theconduct of a survey study. It then analysed a number of interviews on how distance education can beused in engineering in order to provide an alternative to conventional education using advanced ICTtechnologies. Based on the study findings, it then offered some suggestions as to how these effortscould be enhanced through the incorporation of the distance learning component as an alternative toconventional education.

The results of the survey study highlighted the lack of a distance-learning dimension in theimplementation of engineering studies in the European Area. Although the number of studentsenrolled in online engineering courses/degrees steadily increases every year, academic institutionscontinue to focus their advertising efforts on attracting students to their traditional, face-to-faceprogrammes. None of the institutions participating in our study carried out activities wheredistance-based learning was explicitly targeted as the main attractiveness element for theimplementation of engineering studies although some of them have been using distance basededucation to deliver their engineering courses.

Undoubtedly, to remain competitive and to increase their attractiveness, academic institutionsoffering engineering degrees ought to take advantage of the undisputed benefits and proliferation ofdistance education along with the new trends in remote laboratories, VR, AR and MR. At the sametime, however, they should take measures to ensure that their online engineering programmes are ofcomparable, or even superior, quality to those offered face-to-face. The existing literature indicatesnot only advantages, but also challenges regarding distance education, and variable effectiveness ofdistance education programmes [42]. While most of the conducted studies show that students takingonline courses have similar achievement and satisfaction levels compared to students in traditional,face-to-face classrooms [43,44], there is growing evidence of many web-based distance learning coursesfailing to meet the expectations raised. This has been suggested in the interview based study presentedin Section 4. For example, while it is well-documented in statistics education research that theincorporation of discussion and active learning in the classroom can help learners to think and reasonabout statistical concepts, bringing these important learning approaches to an online course has provedvery challenging [45,46].

Early attempts at Internet-based instruction assumed that setting up an attractive website withinteresting online and multimedia applications, was adequate for learning to take place. It is nowrecognised that the level of success of a distance learning course is determined by multiple factors, suchas underlying theory, technologies, teaching strategies, and support for learners. Elements in the designof a web-based course such as the content and structure of the course, the presentation of the onlinematerials, and the amount of interaction between instructors and learners as well as among learnersare important factors affecting students’ learning and attitudes [47]. Another important criterion forthe level of success of network-based engineering training is the extent to which instruction allowslearners to tackle realistic problems related to their field of study, or their daily life [48].

In addition to the general issues and considerations regarding distance education, the trainingof engineers at a distance poses special challenges that also ought to be taken into account whendesigning an online engineering programme. Although there are numerous support platforms todevelop online courses, very few of them were designed specifically to carry out remote experimentsin a real laboratory using real and not virtual equipment e.g., [38]. There have been various attemptsfrom various academic institutions to design remote laboratories for educational purposes, and someexamples of these initiatives have been presented in this paper. The main challenge is to offerhands-on experience to students by physically accessing laboratories or workbenches from distancesites, enhancing their user experience with new technologies such as Augmented or Mixed reality

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 19 of 21

supported by a suitable communication infrastructure. This model can be considered successful, if theindustry accepts the graduates from the distance education programmes in the same way they do forthe conventional ones—considering them equally qualified for the job. There have been substantialefforts towards the development of such technologies, but there is still a long way to go for engineeringdegrees to be successfully offered online in their entirety. However, it is expected that as more and moreacademic institutions realise the importance of online education and join forces to work towards higherstandards, more cost effective, high quality platforms for delivering physically accessible laboratoriesor workbenches from distance sites will begin to appear.

Author Contributions: C. Dimopoulos, K. Katzis and M. Mavrotheris-Meletiou conceived and designed theexperiments; C.Dimopoulos and K.Katzis performed the experiments; K. Katzis and M. Mavrotheris-Meletiou.analyzed the data; I.E. Lasica contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools; K. Katzis, C. Dimopoulos,M. Mavrotheris-Meletiou, I.E. Lasica. wrote the paper.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Becker, S.B. Why don’t young people want to become engineers? Rational reasons for disappointingdecisions. Eur. J. Eng. Educ. 2010, 35, 349–366. [CrossRef]

2. Eagan, M.K., Jr.; Hurtado, S.; Chang, M.J.; Garcia, G.A.; Herrera, F.A.; Garibay, J.C. Making a difference inscience education: The impact of undergraduate research programs. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2013, 50, 683–713.[CrossRef] [PubMed]

3. Johnson, W.C.; Jones, R.C. Declining interest in engineering studies at time of increased business need.In Universities and Business: Partnering for the Knowledge Society; Weber, L.E., Duderstadt, J.J., Eds.;Economica: London, UK, 2006; pp. 243–252.

4. Salanauskaite, L. Gender segregation in education, training and the labour market: Emerging findingsfrom the Beijing Platform for Action report. In Proceedings of the STEM Gender Equality Congress, Berlin,Germany, 8–9 June 2017; pp. 554–580.

5. Pretz, K. A Look at the State of Engineering Education Worldwide. 2016. Available online: http://theinstitute.ieee.org/career-and-education/education/a-look-at-the-state-of-engineering-education-worldwide(accessed on 18 December 2017).

6. Teitelbaum, M.S. Falling Behind? Boom, Bust, and the Global Race for Scientific Talent; Princeton UniversityPress: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2014.

7. The World Bank. World Development Indicators. 2017. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/products/wdi (accessed on 18 December 2017).

8. Harrison, M. Jobs and Growth: The Importance of Engineering Skills to the UK Economy.2012. Available online: http://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/jobs-and-growth (accessed on18 December 2017).

9. Khan, S. The One World Schoolhouse. Education Re-Imagined; Twelve-Hachette Book Group: New York,NY, USA, 2012.

10. OECD Report. What Are Tertiary Students Choosing to Study? Education Indicators in Focus.2014. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/EDIF%202014--No19.pdf(accessed on 18 December 2017).

11. Krneta, R.; Restivo, M.T.; Rojko, A.; Urbano, D. Evaluation of remote experiments by different target groups:NeReLa project case study. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Remote Engineeringand Virtual Instrumentation (REV), Madrid, Spain, 24–26 February 2016; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2016;pp. 326–331.

12. Faiola, A. The New Land of Opportunity for Immigrants is Germany. The Washington Post. 2014.Available online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/the-new-land-of-opportunity-for-immigrants-is-germany/2014/07/27/93464262-7eff-4931-817c-786db6d21ec8_story.html (accessed on18 December 2017).

13. Katzis, K.; Dimopoulos, C.; Hawwash, K. Engineering Career Advising in High Schools. In Proceedings ofthe SEFI 40th Conference, Thessaloniki, Greece, 23–26 September 2012.

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 20 of 21

14. Cruz, S.; da Silva, F.Q.; Capretz, L.F. Forty years of research on personality in software engineering:A mapping study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 46, 94–113. [CrossRef]

15. Bozkurt, A.; Akgun-Ozbek, E.; Yilmazel, S.; Erdogdu, E.; Ucar, H.; Guler, E.; Sezgin, S.; Karadeniz, A.;Sen-Ersoy, N.; Goksel-Canbek, N.; et al. Trends in distance education research: A content analysis of journals2009–2013. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2015, 16. [CrossRef]

16. Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes; Harvard University Press:Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978.

17. Holmberg, B. Distance Education: A Survey and Bibliography; Kogan Page: London, UK, 1977.18. Keegan, D. Foundations of Distance Education, 3th ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 1996.19. Allen, I.E.; Seaman, J. Grade Change: Tracking Online Education in the United States. Available online:

https://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradechange.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2018).20. Bloom, B.S.; Engelhart, M.D.; Furst, E.J.; Hill, W.H.; Krathwohl, D.R. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives:

The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain; Longman: New York, NY, USA, 1956.21. Nightingale, S.; Carew, A.; Fung, J. Application of constructive alignment principles to engineering

education: Have we really changed? In Proceedings of the 2007 AAEE Conference, Melbourne, Australia,9–13 December 2007.

22. Mansor, M.S.A.; Ismail, A. Learning styles and perception of engineering students towards online learning.Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 69, 669–674. [CrossRef]

23. Gravier, C.; Fayolle, J.; Bayard, B.; Ates, M.; Lardon, J. State of the art about remote laboratoriesparadigms—Foundations of ongoing mutations. Int. J. Online Eng. 2008, 4, 19–25.

24. Heradio, R.; de la Torre, L.; Galan, D.; Cabrerizo, F.J.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Dormido, S. Virtual and remotelabs in education: A bibliometric analysis. Comput. Educ. 2016, 98, 14–38. [CrossRef]

25. Vijay, V.C. A Knowledge Based Educational (KBEd) Framework for Enhancing Practical Skills in EngineeringDistance Learners through an Augmented Reality Environment. Ph.D. Dissertation, Birmingham CityUniversity, Birmingham, UK, 2017.

26. Tate, W.F. Access and Opportunities to Learn Are Not Accidents: Engineering Mathematical Progress in Your School;Southeast Eisenhower Regional Consortium for Mathematics Science at SERVE: Greensboro, NC, USA, 2005.

27. Lasica, I-E; Katzis, K; Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M; Dimopoulos, C. Augmented reality in laboratorybasededucation: Could it change the way students decide about their future studies? In Proceedings of the GlobalEngineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Athens, Greece, 26–28 April 2017; pp. 1473–1476.

28. Steinberg, S. Distance Learning: Best Apps, Tools and Online Services. 2013. Available online:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-steinberg/distance-learning-best-apps-tools-and-online-services_b_3805068.html (accessed on 18 December 2017).

29. Lee, J.E.; Lim, D.; Um, G. A Cyber Engineering Education Strategy Based on Smart Learning; International InformationInstitute: Tokyo, Japan, 2015; pp. 1169–1174.

30. Ross, S.; Scanlon, E. Open Science: Distance Teaching and Open Learning of Science Subjects; Paul ChapmanPublishing Ltd.: London, UK, 1995.

31. Elaine, A.I.; Seaman, J. Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States. BABSON SurveyResearch Group, 2011. Available online: http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf (accessed on 18 December 2017).

32. Fallon, T. Survey of Existing Remote Laboratories Used to Conduct Laboratory Exercises for DistanceLearning Courses. American Society for Engineering Education. 2013. Available online: http://www.asee.org/public/conferences/20/papers/7055/view (accessed on 18 December 2017).

33. Müller, D.; Erbe, H. Collaborative Remote Laboratories in Engineering Education: Challenges andVisions. In Advances on Remote Laboratories and E-Learning Experiences; Gomes, L., Garcia-Zubia, J., Eds.;Deusto Publications: Bilbao, Spain, 2007; pp. 35–59.

34. Lindsay, E.; Liu, D.; Murray, S.; Lowe, D. Remote Laboratories in Engineering Education: Trends in Students’Perceptions. In Proceedings of the Conference of the 18th Australasian Association for Engineering Education,Melbourne, Australia, 9 December 2007.

35. Hyder, A.; Choi, S.K.; Schaefer, D. Remotely Controlled Laboratory Experiments: Creation and Examples.In Proceedings of the Systems and Information Engineering Design (SIEDS), Charlottesville, VA, USA,23 April 2010; IEEE Symposium: Charlottesville, VA, USA, 2010.

Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 16 21 of 21

36. Gustavsson, I. User-defined Electrical Experiments in a Remote Laboratory. In Proceedings of theAmerican Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Nashville, Tennessee,22–25 June 2003.

37. Kennepohl, D.; Baran, J.; Connors, M.; Quigley, K.; Currie, R. Remote Access to Instrumental Analysis forDistance Education in Science. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. 2005, 6, 79–96. [CrossRef]

38. NeReLa. EU Funded Tempus Project. 2013. Available online: http://www.nerela.kg.ac.rs (accessed on18 December 2017).

39. Go-Lab Project. 2012. Available online: http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/105919_en.html (accessed on18 December 2017).

40. Schäfer, T.; Seigneur, J.M.; Donelly, A. PEARL: A Generic Architecture for Live Experiments in a Remote Laboratory;Trinity College Dublin: Dublin, Ireland, 2002.

41. EL-STEM: Erasmus+ Project. 2017. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/project/Enlivened-Laboratories-within-STEM-Education-EL-STEM-Motivating-EU-students-to-choosing-STEM-studies-careers-and-improving-their-performance-in-courses-related-to-STEM-education (accessed on 18 December 2017).

42. Evans, S.R.; Wang, R.; Haija, R.; Zhang, J.; Rajicic, N.; Xanthakis, V. Evaluation of distance learning in anintroduction to biostatistics course. Stat. Educ. Res. J. 2007, 6, 59–77.

43. Tallent-Runnels, M.K.; Thomas, J.A.; Lan, W.Y.; Cooper, S.; Ahern, T.C.; Shaw, S.M. Teaching courses online:A review of the research. Rev. Educ. Res. 2006, 76, 93–135. [CrossRef]

44. Mathieson, K. Comparing outcomes between online and face-to-face statistics courses: A systematicreview. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Teaching Statistics, Ljubljana, Slovenia,11–16 July 2010; International Statistics Institute and International Association for Statistical Education:Voorburg, The Netherlands, 2010.

45. Providakis, C.P.; Liarakos, E.V. Web-based concrete strengthening monitoring using an innovativeelectromechanical impedance telemetric system and extreme values statistics. Struct. Control Health Monit.2014, 21, 1252–1268. [CrossRef]

46. Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M.; Serrado, A. Distance Training of Mathematics Teachers: The EarlyStatisticsExperience. Univ. Knowl. Soc. J. 2012, 9, 340–353. [CrossRef]

47. Tudor, G. Teaching introductory statistics online: Satisfying the students. J. Stat. Educ. 2006, 14, 18. [CrossRef]48. Vermeire, L.; Carbonez, A.; Darius, P.; Fresen, J. Just-in-time network based statistical learning:

Tools development and implementation. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on TeachingStatistics, Cape Town, South Africa, 7–12 July 2002; International Statistical Institute and InternationalAssociation for Statistics Education: Cape Town, South Africa, 2002.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open accessarticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).